Underclothes

Why We Wear Underclothing:

• Warmth
• Cleanliness (protect the outer, better garments from soiling)
• Shaping of the body (brassieres, corsets, foxtails, tightly fitting men's hosen)
• Control (restriction of the breasts and male pouch)
• Decorum

Rarity of Evidence from Period

Medieval underclothing was generally covered by outerwear almost as thoroughly as modern underclothing, but with a much lighter restriction on its display. Thus, we do have illustrations of workers at hard labour wearing nothing more than their "underclothes". Prisoners were displayed in their underclothing as a debasement, so paintings depicting the execution of contemporary notorious figures such as religious heretics and the Master of the Knights Templar provide rare complete views of these garments.

We occasionally get glimpses of the edges of these garments, as during periods when the undertunic peeks out from the sleeves or neckline of the outer wear, or through the slits in the bottom hem of tunics, but it is difficult to glean much more information than length out of these.

Since the Medievals did not seem to attach much erotic importance to underclothing, there are few "titillation" depictions of these, even in religious allegories of damnation. Lovers in bed are invariably depicted naked except for nightcaps. The damned in hell are typically portrayed either nude (naked and defenseless), or wearing the excessively rich and vain clothes for which they were condemned (exemplifying the mortal sin of vanities).

Materials

Linen was often chosen for comfort in garments worn next to the skin. It was easy to bleach: laid in the sun wet, UV light will oxidize the water and bleach the fabric (when laid out dry in UV, the plant fiber oxidizes instead, turning it yellow). However, this was still a luxury item: sunning linen would occupy scads of sunlit, flat, and presumably arable land.

Woolen undergarments appear in various references, which offered the sensibility of additional warmth at the cost of comfort; thus, there are occasional references to class distinctions, with the rich preferring linen underclothes. There are also admonitions to wear sensible wool for undergarments, instead of bowing to the (supposedly) unhealthy fashion to wear finer cloths.

Blended textiles were very common (e.g., fustian is sometimes described as a wool/silk blend), and might have made a pleasant compromise in warmth and comfort. Linen/wool underclothing is therefore believable, although I have never heard evidence of such. There are also references to linen linings for wool hosen.

Silk was tremendously costly, and, as today, was rarely used for garments which were not meant to be seen (modern erotic underwear does not meet this criterion). For hosen, however, there are some rare references to its use. Henry VIII ordered silk hosen to be made for his sister.

Cotton was probably not used at this time for underclothes. Although imported to Europe by at least the 13th c (from India and Arabia), it seems to have been prohibitively expensive. It is frankly poorly suited to these uses: it shrinks tremendously in washing, and continues to shrink, making it poorly suited to tightly fitted hosen (wool fibers stretch and relax back to near original size); it retains moisture, making it a poor insulator and a good rotter; it weakens when wet; it stains easily. Bear in mind when reading sources from our period that until the 18th c the term "cotton" or "coton" could refer to any of: wool fiber, cotton (plant) fiber, or various specific cloths made of wool or cotton or both.

Knitting is almost never mentioned in the manufacture of any garments except headgear, prior to the 16th c. Queen Elizabeth received a gift of knitted hosen from Spain, which quickly became the height of fashion for the well-to-do; the implication is that knitted hosen were unknown in England prior to this, and her father wore hosen cut of broadcloth.

German references mention the use of knitting to make berets, hats, and stockings (according to a post to H-Costume by Julie Adams dated Mon, 9 Oct 95 [Textilier Hausrat]). Apparently, the English were far behind the Germans and Spaniards in this regard. One member of H-Costume offered a plausible excuse for why it took so long before Europeans, who knew how to knit in various forms throughout the Medieval period, used it for hosen. After all, knitted items are extremely springy, waste no thread, and can form seamlessly fitted hosen; knitting seems ideally suited for hosen. However, she explained that in the time that it took her to knit one inch of a leg-sized tube, she could weave one foot of woolen cloth.

Under Shirt

Women's Underdresses

Women's underdresses begin as loose-fitting shirts or chemises, probably cut simply to a T-tunic shape (i.e., without gussets). In the 12th & 13th c we see the loose, flowing bliauts bound just beneath the breasts with wide belts. The usual interpretation is that this "high-waisting" caused the dress to billow out over the belly, suggesting continual pregnancy and thus fertility. To appreciate this, we must free ourselves from the rather recent notion that "Thin Is In", and remember that the goal of any married couple was to have enough children to overcome infant (and maternal) mortality, with enough progeny to carry out the family chores. Men often remarried multiple times, in an age when divorce was unheard of. However, there may be one more practical reason for high-belting which I have never heard discussed. Underneath that freely-flowing bliaut was loose-fitting chemise, and under that, bare skin. Belting beneath the bosom cinched the breasts in place, providing support in a day when there was nothing yet resembling a brassiere to support the weight.

13th c undersleeves scoop out of the external sleeves to envelope the hands of wealthy women. This serves a double purpose, to emphasize the class distinction from those who labour with their hands, and to protect costly embroidered sleeve cuffs from grease and grime. Clean, bleached linen cuffs could be easily replaced by the wealthy, recycled into lesser uses.

By the 14th c they began wearing an under-cotehardie beneath the visible cotehardie; i.e., an undergarment became more highly fitted so as to not produce unsightly wrinkles in the sexy form of the tight cotehardies. Modern reenactors (of both sexes) can attest to how readily a fitted cotehardie of cotton or linen reveals bulges from underlying modern underwear. "Panty lines" from bulky underclothes which today are mildly unfashionable might have been unthinkably vulgar to a Medieval woman. This garment is not necessarily the innermost layer, by the previous arguments in the Shirt section. Instead, they might have been wearing a shirt of fine cloth, covered by a smoothing under-cotehardie, and finally an outer garment; in the manner of modern panties (for comfort & cleanliness), a slip (for smoothing), and a skirt (for show).

By the end of the 14th c we begin to see evidence of an underdress made of fine or sheer cloth peeking out of the bustlines and sleeves. Another glimpse of these delicate underdresses is found in depictions of nursing mothers, as with the Madonna (1453-4) by Jean Fouquet, where the underdress is almost sheer. Pictures of bathhouse attendant women appear in the Wenceslas Bible, made in Bohemia c1390-1400. These women were regarded in their day as being of dubious moral nature, or perhaps outright prostitutes, and are presumed to be dressed in contemporary underclothes (a rare Medieval instance of eroticizing underclothing).

Corsets / Bodices / Pair of Bodies

We will deal only briefly with this topic, as it is probably entirely post-Medieval. Janet Arnold, the renowned expert on Elizabethan clothing, proposes that the earliest remaining corset in England is from Queen Elizabeth's effigy in Westminster Abbey. Evidence exists for corseting as early as the beginning of the 16th c Various authors have explored the possibility that the narrow, stylized female torsos of the 15th c were the resulting of corseting; most conclude that if any restriction was used it was achieved by tight-lacing cotehardies.

Bumrolls

Believe it or not, there is at least one piece of evidence that this "figure aid" is Medieval. There is a diatribe by an English bishop against women who wear foxtails beneath their cotehardies, supplementing what Nature gave them!